Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 681 (PAT)

Sri Chandra Kishore Thakur v. Union Of India

2002-06-27

R.N.PRASAD, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2002
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sharad Kumar Sinha, for the respondent No. 5 Mr. Jayant Kumar Karn and for the Union of India Mr. P.K. Shahi. 2. The short contention on behalf of the petitioner Chandra Kishore Thakur is that any appointment which he had received as an extraordinary Post-Master, ultimately became provisional and was made to continue, depending upon the circumstances that Surendra Kumar Choudhary who had challenged his appointment may ultimately be cleared from a criminal case which was pending. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that if Surendra Kumar Choudhary who had challenged his appointment has been acquitted beyond the reasonable doubt and has a clear track record then at that stage matter a situation may arise as to of the two is the better candidate. Suffice it to say, the contention on behalf of the petitioner is, that far from being acquitted at the time when the Tribunal rendered its order dated 26 July 2000, Surendra Kumar Choudhary is and was an accused no. 6 in Session Case No. 256 of 1994 : State V/s. Mahabir Mahto, in the Court of llnd Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai and charged under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code; charges for dacoity. The position of Surendra Kumar Choudhary, before the Tribunal, far from getting better is worse, as he now stands for trial on charges of dacoity. Thus, the contention on behalf of the petitioner is that there was no occasion for the department of Postal to terminate his services by an order of 21 February 2001 and worse come to worse his services were to continue provisionally as ordered by the Tribunal, the operative portion of the order of the Tribunal dated 26.7.2000. 3. The contention on behalf of the petitioner are borne by record and on this there is no issue. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the fact that Surendra Kumar Choudhary had been charged and was to stand trial under Section 395 of the IPC was a fact but an aspect which Surendra Kumar Choudhary did not disclose before the Central Administrative Tribunal. If that be the case then the petitioner Chandra Kishore Thakur will be entitled to seek a review of the decision of the Tribunal. 4. If that be the case then the petitioner Chandra Kishore Thakur will be entitled to seek a review of the decision of the Tribunal. 4. In so far as the present writ petition is concerned, clearly in the face of the order of the Tribunal the action to terminate the services of the petitioner Chandra Kishore Thakur by a department order dated 21 February 2001 (Annexure 10) to the Interlocutory Application No. 1070/2001 is quashed. 5. The petition succeeds. There will be no order as to costs.